This is a copy of an article written by Robert Parker about some Pinot Noir (blind tasting). Because I am a winemaker and does not want to hurt the ego of my colleagues, I removed the names of the wineries. This tasting is interesting because it seems that high prices do not reflect the quality.
However, also, as a winemaker, I can tell you that a Pinot Noir goes thru some phases and a bad rating does not mean a bad wine. The poor winery who sent the bottles might have sent them in the wrong time.
Anyway, just read the comments, the points and the price….Have fun!
P.S:These wines were selected because of the winery reputation.
1) 2000 XXXXXXXXXX" (Oregon) - $55 - 89 rating Medium saturated color. Attractive and authentic Pinot Noir nose showing sweet, jammy fruit, wood, and spice. Open and expressive on the palate; medium bodied, soft, sweet, slightly tannic, with the influence of oak very much in evidence. A balanced wine; not a heavyweight. Dryness in the finish. Nose was better than the taste. Overall, a solid Pinot Noir but not stellar.
2) 2000 XXXXXXXXXXX- $60 - 87 rating Fairly deep color with a lot of “noir” in the core. Rich, attractive fruit in the nose with a vegetal note thrown in. Interesting on the palate. People who liked it a lot were attracted to the wine’s youthfulness, many layers of complexity, attractive, ripe fruit, balance, modest tannins, good acidity, and a long, consistent finish. However, a majority of tasters were bothered by the “stewy,” roasted quality and late-harvest style of the wine.
3) 2000 XXXXXXXXXXX (Oregon) - $80 - 87 rating Fairly deep color. Tightish nose is by far the most delicate in the flight. But there’s nice red berry fruit underneath the tannins and Burgundian character. On the palate there’s nice freshness and good acidity, but the wine seems disjointed now with the fruit buried and the wine not showing much in terms of depth or length. There’s a little bitterness in the finish. This wine will no doubt improve with time, but will never be great.
4) 2001 XXXXXXXXXXX(Willamette Valley) - $55 - 93 rating Fairly light color; reminds us of Burgundy. By far the best nose of the first flight: spicy, gamy, with an exotic sauvage quality that was well-received by most, but not all participants. There’s a lot of oak here too. Big and tannic on entry with sweet, ripe black cherry fruit, lots of depth, and Burgundian character. Very long finish. Those people who love Burgundy generally gave this wine very high marks. Those looking for more refined, strait and narrow Pinot found other wines to like.
5) 2001 XXXXXXXXXXX (Santa Lucia Highlands) - $70 - 93 rating Fairly deep color. There’s a lot of oak in the nose but plenty of ripe fruit to balance; a big, expressive bouquet that says Pinot Noir. Clean and well-made on entry, displaying plenty of extract, new oak, depth, and complexity. It’s a big Pinot yet balanced and harmonious, almost elegant, a real accomplishment for a wine of this size. The finish is particularly long. First rate.
6) 2000 XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Willamette Valley) - $50 - 94 rating Fairly deep color. Nose is tight at first, but with aeration it opens to reveal lovely Pinot Noir character featuring sweet, fragrant cherry fruit, spice, and some oak nuances. Luscious on the palate from the first sip with juicy fruit and lots of texture. There’s a vibrancy to this wine that makes it special. So much is going on, like a three-ring circus in your mouth. Yet, everything is in perfect balance. Very long, consistent finish. Like the porridge that’s "just right," it’s hard to imagine anyone who wouldn’t love this wine.
7) 2001 XXXXXXXXXXXX - $45 - 70 rating Medium color. Weird nose, very hard to describe because none of us had ever encountered such bizarreness before. Both bottles tasted were simply dreadful on the palate; sweet cherry cough syrup. Something went horribly wrong here, yet it was not corked, maderized, oxidized. There was no evidence of "bret”" or any other bacteria. There was nothing wrong with the wine glass. Still, the wine was virtually undrinkable. We had tasted this wine a few months earlier at a trade tasting and liked it very much, so it’s hard to explain how something went so awry with the bottles we opened. It’s a mystery to us.
8) 2002 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - $75 - 75 rating Fairly deep color. Sweet cherry Robutussin nose is off-putting. Excessively sweet on the palate; may be the most "cough syrupy" wine we’ve ever encountered. There was pronounced peppery quality that came out as the wine sat. But in the end, the wine was a disaster, unfit to be served in a Prisoner of War camp. Like wine #7, it’s hard for us to figure out what went wrong.
9) 2001 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX - 87 rating Medium-light color. Clean, nice, subtle Pinot Noir nose with a hint of heat. An oaky, sweet, juicy wine on the palate with a little bit of tannin. The alcohol makes its presence felt more than we’d like, and the wine is a little low on acidity and refinement. Long finish. Overall, a good wine with genuine Pinot character, but nothing special.
10) 2000 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - $55 - 91 rating Fairly deeply colored, one of the darkest so far. Rich nose is powerful with plenty of oak; nothing subtle about this baby. Big and powerful on the palate, like Barry Bonds on steroids. Youthful and muscular. Good fruit underneath, on the dryer side. Most tasters were impressed with the depth of flavor this wine had. But the acidity seemed low and vegetal notes emerged as the wine aerated in the glass. Still, because of its structure, this was one of the most interesting wines of the evening.
11) 2001XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(Russian River Valley) - $60 - 92 rating Medium color. Soft yet exotic nose is open and very attractive; plenty of rich, ripe fruit. Follows through nicely on the palate with lots of sweet, ripe fruit at the core, but there’s also structure and good mouth-feel. Not a flamboyant wine, it’s clean and well-made. Long finish. Some argued that this wine was too raisiny sweet and alcoholic. A majority thought that it served as a good example of a Pinot Noir that Cabernet drinkers will adore.
12) 2001 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Willamette Valley) - $70 - 85 rating Medium color. Soft, pleasant wine in the nose, but hardly distinguished. A juicy wine on entry with clean, nice fruit and decent acidity. But it’s also a relatively simple wine lacking the structure and depth to be considered first rate. This is particularly obvious in the middle palate. There’s a little bitterness in the finish, too. Overall disappointing. If you could open a bottle of the 1994 version of this wine, you’d realize just how far the 2001 misses the mark. Let’s blame it on the vintage! Yeah, that’s the ticket.